Ex-wife wins £50,000 maintenance, for her HORSES.

Source: Daily Mail

A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.

They also ruled she should be given a lump sum of £900,000 from her ex-husband, a banker in the City, to allow her to buy a house with enough land for the animals.

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.

Somebody fucking shoot me.

The talented rider’s annual package came to £80,000, including the £50,000 for her three animals which the court heard were almost a child substitute.

Oh fuck off you childish bitch. I guess this female is incapable of providing the upkeep for these horses from her own back. She chooses, he pays. And people wonder why marriage rates are falling through the floor.

The couple, who live in Gloucestershire, had been married for 11 years but had no children after she lost a baby in 2001.

‘During the marriage the horses played a major part in the wife’s life with the consent and encouragement of the husband,’ Britain’s most senior family judge Sir Mark Potter said.

So what’s the message then? Don’t consent to your wife doing anything can she could use against you in divorce? Oh wait, you can’t do that, that would be OPPRESSING the poor, weak, female. Wait, I thought women were equal to men? Guess that’s another flip flop they can do when it suits them.

The animals became even more important after they lost their baby and in 2004, her husband gave her a foal to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary, the court heard.

She had bought the other two herself with £20,000 from a personal inheritance and loved eventing them.

However, when the couple split up, her husband argued the horses were an unnecessary luxury and that she should keep one and put it into livery.

The appeal judges disagreed and upheld the original award made by District Judge Michael Segal in the county court last May.

Of course they did. Reading this article, one gets the feeling of a spoilt child arguing for the man to continue to pay for her little treats, as if he is obligated to her after divorce. For how long? Until she says so? What does she have to do in return? That’s right, FUCK ALL.

He held that the wife’s talent and obvious love for her horses had been prominent throughout their lives together.

She had given up her part-time job in a financial company after they married while her husband carried on working in the City.

A woman working part-time in the City? Well I never. I know this story well. A part timer bitch who shacks up with a banker, immediately quits her job (probably the bloody reason she went for a job in ‘finance’ anyway) and does the ‘i love you’ scam for the required length of time. Beats having to earn a living eh…

Judge Segal said: ‘In any event, the wife does not want a 9-to-5 job, because this would not give her enough time with her horses. I am not qualified to say whether or not it is because she has no children that she is so devoted to her horses.’

I don’t believe this. The Judge is making excuses for this entitlement bitch. She doesn’t want to do a full time job because of her horses? What the FUCK does that have to do with the husband, who was probably pulling 50 hour weeks in the City to fund her self-indulgent lifestyle. It’s HER choice, her action, so she should be responsible for that. Anything the ex-husband gave her should be appreciated for what it was. Which is now over.

The wife had said: ‘Horses are my family. I see them every day. You form a very close bond with horses.’

Mr Justice Potter agreed she should not be expected to work full-time at the cost of her horses and eventing because the hobby had been such a big part of their lives.

Barbara Simpson, head of family law at Boodle Hatfield and a deputy district judge in the family courts, warned the ruling would have far-reaching consequences

<!– function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&&sectionName=BusinessLaw’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=1000,height=711′); } //–>

‘One could easily envisage a scenario where, for example, the wife had a particular interest in breeding spaniels and entered them in local dog shows,’ she told The Times.

‘If there was enough money in the divorce pot, it is not inconceivable that she would be awarded money in order to buy a property with kennels or maintenance to cover the costs of the vet’s bills or doggy treats.’

That’s another 50,000 men saying no to marriage, then.

Advertisements

Sexism and the City?

The femprop never stops. Every couple of months, another article has to come out moaning about how hard done by women are.

In April 2008 the Fawcett Society launches a campaign for equal pay for women, in an effort to close the gender pay gap.

This still exists more than 10 years after Labour came to power pledging to address the issue.

The situation is particularly acute in London.

Really?

Unequal pay for women has been illegal for 30 years, and yet in London men earn 24% more than women – the highest discrepancy in the country.

The gap becomes even more marked at the higher end of the scale with men earning 32% more than their female counterparts.

Only 11% of FTSE 100 directors are female and no company in the city has more than 30% female staff.

So what. When was the last time you heard of a business giving a woman a job, but actually paying her less money than they advertised? I mean, if the job states £20,000 a year, that comes with some conditions. Like actually being there full time. For a whole year. Continue reading

It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men

So says the Minister for Equality, Harriet (Feminist/ Communist Scum) Harman.

White men could be legally blocked from getting jobs under new anti-discrimination laws being considered by Labour.

Employers would be able to give jobs to women or ethnic minority candidates in preference to other applicants, under the plans unveiled by equalities minister Harriet Harman.

If two candidates were equally qualified for a position, employers would be able to reject the white person or the man in favour of a black person or a woman.

When they say black person, they actually mean non-white, as this fucking scum of a government, in its never ending quest for division and conflict, keeps trying to separate the people into groups, which they can then set into opposition.

Miss Harman – known as Harriet Harperson for her politically correct views – wants to look at how to bring U.S.-style “positive action” to Britain, saying it is vital to ensure the workforce more accurately reflects the demographic make-up of the population.

She says too many women and people from ethnic minorities are being held back because they cannot break through the “glass ceiling”.

Who let this stupid bitch into Westminster? Oh yeah, Gordon Brown. These commie-femcunts are obsessed with attacking the main demographic of western countries. Disenfranchise them, and the country is yours… Continue reading

Women and their entitlement attitude.

I was sidelined by Oxford University football team just because I’m a mother

A leading academic has launched a sex discrimination case against Oxford University – because she was dropped from a football team.

Dr Cecile Deer, 40, says she should have been a star striker with the university’s ladies staff team.

Only a woman would have this self-centered attitude.

But the mother of three, an economics research fellow, found herself relegated to substitute while less able players took the field.

Eventually, she says, she was told by the women who ran the team that she could not be a reliable player because she had young children.

Oh women ‘discriminating’ against women? Say it isn’t so! Continue reading